From: Wesley R. Elsberry <welsberr@inia.cls.org>
>
>The external review committee review on the Michael Polanyi Center
>is in.
>
><http://pr.baylor.edu/polanyi>
>
>It is an interesting document, though brief. The committee
>affirmed the traditional importance of study of the relation
>between science and theology at Baylor, and indicated that
>Dembski and Gordon's work could be seen as part of that
>tradition. The committee advised that it was inappropriate
>to utilize the name of Michael Polanyi in association with
>the "Intelligent Design" focus of Dembski and Gordon.
>The committee also recommended a faculty advisory committee
>to be involved in planning and review of work at the
>Institute for Faith and Learning, the current parent of the
>MPC.
>
>On my first reading, the report appeared to do relatively
>little to change the status quo. A name change for the MPC,
>perhaps. An advisory committee that could be two steps
>removed from the action, and with a little extra help,
>relatively ineffective. But there are hints that more may
>be in the works.
>
>It can be taken as a recommendation that the MPC be dissolved
>as a separate entity, but that Dembski and Gordon be retained
>in association with the Institute for Faith and Learning.
>The committee's identification of the IFL as the "appropriate
>administrative structure" for pursuing a science and religion
>dialogue could be regarded in this way.
>
>Either way, it looks like what has resulted is a compromise
>between the extremes. Dembski and Gordon will, it appears,
>still be associated with Baylor. The faculty have the
>potential for having some say in how the programs in the IFL
>get run. The Michael Polanyi name will no longer be
>associated with "Intelligent Design" activities at Baylor.
>At least, that's the way it looks to me at the moment.
>
>A very interesting point in the report is that the review
>committee does not classify Dembski's work as science, but
>rather as something relevant to the relationships between
>science and religion.
It seems to me that the review committee has effectively recommended a
dissolution of the Polyani Center as a separate entity, while being very
careful to avoid any such emotive words as "dissolve." On the other hand,
the accompanying news article gives the impression that the Center will
continue under another name. (Perhaps the journalist failed to read between
the lines of the report.)
So the situation remains unclear. However, it does seem that Dembski and
Gordon will have less autonomy than they had before. How much less remains
to be seen. How much effect will the appointment of an advisory committee
have, given that it is only "advisory"? I foresee a stormy future for
relations between Dembski/Gordon and this advisory committee.
I regret that the report failed to look in more detail at the activities of
Dembski and Gordon. For example, the fact that both of them are proponents
of one particular fringe view and members of an organisation (the CRSC) that
is actively propagating that view in a political manner should cast some
doubt on their suitability for the role they're to play in the IFL.
The report stated: "Nevertheless, the Committee wishes to make it clear that
it considers research on the logical structure of mathematical arguments for
intelligent design to have a legitimate claim to a place in current
discussions of the relations of religion and the sciences. Although this
work, involving as it does technical issues in the theory of probability, is
relatively recent in origin and has thus only just begun to receive response
in professional journals (see, for example, the essay by Elliot Sober in
Philosophy of Science, 66, 1999, pp. 472-488), the Institute should be free,
if it chooses, to include in its coverage this line of work, when carried
out professionally."
That sounds reasonable, until one remembers that Dembski and Gordon are
already committed to supporting one particular mathematical argument.
Furthermore, Dembski's espousal of this argument has been far from
"professional", since he has presented his argument in a vague and equivocal
manner, failed to clarify fundamental issues, and refused to cite any data
to support his claims.
One might say that such considerations were outside the scope of the review
committee's work. And I can appreciate that the committee would not want to
cast aspersions on the aims of any individual. Nevetheless, Dembski et al
are involved in a clever propaganda campaign aimed at subverting science,
and it is unwise for anyone concerned with genuine science and education to
close their eyes to this.
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
-- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 18 2000 - 10:38:56 EDT